Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Tina Russo, etc.
175 So. 3d 681
Fla.2015Background
- Frazier alleged COPD from smoking defendants’ cigarettes; started smoking in 1945 and switched brands based on advertising; internal tobacco company documents showed awareness of risks; Engle-progeny context involved fraudulent concealment and conspiracy-based claims; trial court refused jury instruction on fraud statute of repose and refused a specific verdict form; district court held last act in furtherance of conspiracy triggers repose and allowed evidence of post-1982 concealment; Engle findings later addressed in Hess and related Fourth District decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of repose applicability to fraudulent concealment claims | Frazier argues reliance evidence within repose is unnecessary for repose bar. | Defendants contend reliance must occur within 12-year repose window. | Repose triggers by last act; reliance timing not required within repose. |
| Last-act rule for conspiracy and repose applicability | Conspiracy claims should not be barred if last act occurred within repose. | Last act in furtherance of conspiracy controls accrual for repose. | Last act triggers repose for conspiracy claims; evidence of post-1982 concealment permissible. |
| Whether Naugle and Cohen correctly required post-repose reliance | Naugle/Cohen require reliance after May 5, 1982 for fraud claims. | Reliance timing should determine applicability of repose. | Disapproved Naugle and Cohen; Engle-progeny may rely on conduct within repose. |
| Constitutional right of access to courts | Plaintiff argues access rights argue for broader relief. | State interest in repose justifies current rule. | Court does not address access issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Engle v. Liggett Group, Inc., 945 So.2d 1246 (Fla. 2006) (fraudulent concealment, Engle progeny approach; accrual vs. repose distinction)
- Laschke v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 766 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (date of last act in furtherance of conspiracy governs repose)
- Kush v. Lloyd, 616 So.2d 415 (Fla. 1992) (statute of repose runs from date of wrongful conduct)
- Naugle v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 103 So.3d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reliance required post-repose; disapproved by this Court)
- Cohen v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 102 So.3d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reliance required post-repose; disapproved by this Court)